Note concerning these texts: each text has been taken from the Internet Medieval Source-Book, an incredibly valuable collection of original sources for the medieval period edited by Paul Halsall at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html . I have re-mounted them here solely in order to add introductions to each text that are specific to my own teaching needs.
Index:
1. The Nicene Creed, 325 CE (click here)
2. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, humbles the Emperor Theodosius, 390 CE
(click here)
3. St Augustine of Hippo: excerpts from The City of God concerning
the nature of the two cities (click here)
4. St Vincent of Lerins defines orthodoxy, circa 434 CE (click
here)
Introduction: This simple statement of faith was produced by an empire-wide synod of bishops held in Nicaea in 325 CE. Keep in mind that Emperor Constantine had only legalized Christianity thirteen years only, and that the Emperor himself presided over this synod. Constantine was particularly interested in producing a uniformity of belief and faith, and therefore in ending the bitter conflict between Arians and non-Arians. Recall that Arius and his followers argued that the second part of the trinity (God the son, or Christ) was lesser than God the Father; in essence they thought of Christ as not fully divine. They were opposed by another segment of the Christian population, who eventually prevailed and therefore called themselves ‘orthodox' or ‘catholic'. As violent controversy concerning the two positions rocked the empire during the mid fourth century, the Emperor wanted to clear up this point of disagreement and produce a uniform set of beliefs. At Nicaea in 325, the assembled bishops argued long and hard before deciding in favor of the non-Arian position. The Arians eventually came to be considered heretics, and the non-Arian position became the standard, or orthodox one. The Creed produced in 325 (from the Latin word credo, meaning "I believe") was thus an important theological and political statement of anti-Arian orthodoxy. It is still used in many Christian churches today (for instance, in the Episcopal Church). Read it for a sense of what was important to its authors. What does it tell us about Christianity in the fourth century?
The Synod at Nicaea set forth this Creed:
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nicaea.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible
and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten
of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the
Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate
and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended
into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there
was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten
he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is
of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature,
or subject to change or conversion--all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic
Church anathematizes them.
Source: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, ed. H. Percival, in the
Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series (New York: Charles
Scribners, 1990), Vol XIV, 3. Taken from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook,
a collection of copy-permitted texts operated by Paul Halsall and located
at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html.
2. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, Humbles Emperor Theodosius, 390 CE
Introduction: Bishops were originally the spontaneously chosen pastors of each local Christian community. When Christianity became legalized in 312 CE, the newly-Christian Emperors saw in these unofficial leaders a way to provide order and discipline in the Christian world. By the end of the fourth century, therefore, bishops had become important officials, chosen with care by the local community in consultation with the Empire. Bishops presided over a ‘diocese' or ‘see' which was usually centered in a major city or town. Their responsibilities became both pastoral and administrative, and in this way they functioned as a link between spiritual communities and the imperial administration. Yet in endowing the bishops with more authority, the Imperial administration did not realize that this authority might sometimes clash with the will of the secular authority. Already in 390 CE the great Bishop Ambrose of Milan had begun to assert the independence of bishops (and the church as an institution) from the secular realm. The following account, is indicative of this trend. What does it tell us about relations between the Emperor and clergy? What meaning has come to be assigned to the word ‘church'? What is the fundamental principle of power and authority that Ambrose asserts here?
Theodoret (c.393-466 CE), from his Ecclesiastical History, V.17-18:
Thessalonica is a large and populous city, in the province of Macedonia.
As a result of sedition there, the anger of the Emperor [Theodosius] rose
to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance
by unsheathing the sword most unjustly and tyrannically against all, slaying
the innocent and guilty alike. It is said seven thousand perished without
any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon
them; but that, like ears of wheat in the time of harvest, they were alike
cut down.
When Ambrose heard of this deplorable catastrophe, he went out to meet the Emperor, who---on his return to Milan---desired as usual to enter the holy church, but Ambrose prohibited his entrance, saying "You do not reflect, it seems, O Emperor, on the guilt you have incurred by that great massacre; but now that your fury is appeased, do you not perceive the enormity of your crime? You must not be dazzled by the splendor of the purple you wear, and be led to forget the weakness of the body which it clothes. Your subjects, O Emperor, are of the same nature as yourself, and not only so, but are likewise your fellow servants; for there is one Lord and Ruler of all, and He is the maker of all creatures, whether princes or people. How would you look upon the temple of the one Lord of all? How could you lift up in prayer hands steeped in the blood of so unjust a massacre? Depart then, and do not by a second crime add to the guilt of the first."
The Emperor, who had been brought up in the knowledge of Holy Writ, and who knew well the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the temporal power, submitted to the rebuke, and with many tears and groans returned to his palace. The Emperor shut himself up in his palace and shed floods of tears. After vain attempts to appease Ambrose, Theodosius himself at last went to Ambrose privately and besought mercy, saying "I beseech you, in consideration of the mercy of our common Lord, to unloose me from these bonds, and not to shut the door which is opened by the Lord to all that truly repent." Ambrose stipulated that the Emperor should prove his repentance by recalling his unjust decrees, and especially by ordering "that when sentence of death or of proscription has been signed against anyone, thirty days are to elapse before execution, and on the expiration of that time the case is to be brought again before you, for your resentment will then be calmed and you can justly decide the issue." The Emperor listened to this advice, and deeming it excellent, he at once ordered the law to be drawn up, and himself signed the document. St. Ambrose then unloosed his bonds.
The Emperor, who was full of faith, now took courage to enter holy church where he prayed neither in a standing, nor in a kneeling posture, but throwing himself upon the ground. He tore his hair, struck his forehead, and shed torrents of tears, as he implored forgiveness of God. Ambrose restored him to favor, but forbade him to come inside the altar rail, ordering his deacon to say "The priests alone, O Emperor, are permitted to enter within the barriers by the altar. Retire then, and remain with the rest of the laity. A purple robe makes Emperors, but not priests. . ." Theodosius meekly obeyed, praising Ambrose for his spirit, and saying "Ambrose alone deserves the title of "bishop."
Source: William Stearns Davis, ed., Readings in Ancient History: Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, 2 Vols. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1912-13), Vol. II: Rome and the West, 298-300. Taken from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, a collection of copy-permitted texts operated by Paul Halsall and located at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html.
3. St. Augustine of Hippo: excerpts from The City of God concerning the Two Cities
Introduction: St. Augustine (354-430) was the most influential of the Latin Church Fathers. His amazingly prolific and wide-ranging theological work formed the foundation for much of what would become Western Christendom. He was born Tagaste in North Africa and became bishop of the city of Hippo. Among his other writings are the Confessions, the first autobiography written in the West, and On Christian Doctrine, an important analytical treatment of the ways of studying and interpreting scripture. He began writing The City of God in 410, after Alaric and the Vandals had sacked Rome. Many pagans blamed the conversion of the empire to Christianity for this calamity. Augustine tried to defend the Church by tracing the history of two cities or states from the beginning of the world. Notice here that Augustine's Christianity is heavily intellectual and scholarly; we are far removed from the world of Peprpetua. How does Augustine attempt to convince the pagan critics? What tools of analysis does he use? What are the political and social implications of his distinction between the two cities? Remember that Augustine is talking allegorically here: he is referring to no particular physical place on earth (although many lesser minds assumed that the earthly city was in fact Rome), but rather to two ideal types. Why did he use the metaphor of the ‘city' (ie., why not "fountain", "cave", "temple", etc.)?
Book XIV Chap. 28: Of The Nature Of The Two Cities, The Earthly And
The Heavenly.
Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly
by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love
of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in
itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the
greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one
lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, "Thou art
my glory, and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and
the nations it subdues are ruled by the love of ruling; in the other, the
princes and the subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying,
while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength,
represented in the persons of its rulers; the other says to its God, "I
will love Thee, O Lord, my strength." And therefore the wise men of the
one city, living according to man, have sought for profit to their own
bodies or souls, or both, and those who have known God "glorified Him not
as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,"--that
is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed by pride,--"they
became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image
made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and
creeping things." For they were either leaders or followers of the people
in adoring images, "and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever." But in the other city there is no human
wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and
looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well
as holy men, "that God may be all in all."
Book XV. CHAP. 4: Of The Conflict And Peace Of The Earthly City.
But the earthly city, which shall not be everlasting (for it will no
longer be a city when it has been committed to the extreme penalty), has
its good in this world, and rejoices in it with such joy as such things
can afford. But as this is not a good which can discharge its devotees
of all distresses, this city is often divided against itself by litigations,
wars, quarrels, and such victories as are either life-destroying or short-lived.
For each part of it that arms against another part of it seeks to triumph
over the nations through itself in bondage to vice. If, when it has conquered,
it is inflated with pride, its victory is life-destroying; but if it turns
its thoughts upon the common casualties of our mortal condition, and is
rather anxious concerning the disasters that may befall it than elated
with the successes already achieved, this victory, though of a higher kind,
is still only shot-lived; for it cannot abidingly rule over those whom
it has victoriously subjugated. But the things which this city desires
cannot justly be said to be evil, for it is itself, in its own kind, better
than all other human good. For it desires earthly peace for the sake of
enjoying earthly goods, and it makes war in order to attain to this peace;
since, if it has conquered, and there remains no one to resist it, it enjoys
a peace which it had not while there were opposing parties who contested
for the enjoyment of those things which were too small to satisfy both.
This peace is purchased by toilsome wars; it is obtained by what they style
a glorious victory. Now, when victory remains with the party which had
the juster cause, who hesitates to congratulate the victor, and style it
a desirable peace? These things, then, are good things, and without doubt
the gifts of God. But if they neglect the better things of the heavenly
city, which are secured by eternal victory and peace never-ending, and
so inordinately covet these present good things that they believe them
to be the only desirable things, or love them better than those things
which are believed to be better,--if this be so, then it is necessary that
misery follow and ever increase.
Book 19. CHAP. 17: What Produces Peace, And What Discord, Between The
Heavenly And Earthly Cities.
But the families which do not live by faith seek their peace in the
earthly advantages of this life; while the families which live by faith
look for those eternal blessings which are promised, and use as pilgrims
such advantages of time and of earth as do not fascinate and divert them
from God, but rather aid them to endure with greater ease, and to keep
down the number of those burdens of the corruptible body which weigh upon
the soul. Thus the things necessary for this mortal life are used by both
kinds of men and families alike, but each has its own peculiar and widely
different aim in using them. The earthly city, which does not live by faith,
seeks an earthly peace, and the end it proposes, in the well-ordered concord
of civic obedience and rule, is the combination of men's wills to attain
the things which are helpful to this life. The heavenly city, or rather
the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of
this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates
it shall pass away. Consequently, so long as it lives like a captive and
a stranger in the earthly city, though it has already received the promise
of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as the earnest of it, it makes
no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city, whereby the things necessary
for the maintenance of this mortal life are administered; and thus, as
this life is common to both cities, so there is a harmony between them
in regard to what belongs to it. But, as the earthly city has had some
philosophers whose doctrine is condemned by the divine teaching, and who,
being deceived either by their own conjectures or by demons, supposed that
many gods must be invited to take an interest in human affairs, and assigned
to each a separate function and a separate department,--to one the body,
to another the soul; and in the body itself, to one the head, to another
the neck, and each of the other members to one of the gods; and in like
manner, in the soul, to one god the natural capacity was assigned, to another
education, to another anger, to another lust; and so the various affairs
of life were assigned,--cattle to one, corn to another, wine to another,
oil to another, the woods to another, money to another, navigation to another,
wars and victories to another, marriages to another, births and fecundity
to another, and other things to other gods: and as the celestial city,
on the other hand, knew that one God only was to be worshipped, and that
to Him alone was due that service which the Greeks call latreia, and which
can be given only to a god, it has come to pass that the two cities could
not have common laws of religion, and that the heavenly city has been compelled
in this matter to dissent, and to become obnoxious to those who think differently,
and to stand the brunt of their anger and hatred and persecutions, except
in so far as the minds of their enemies have been alarmed by the multitude
of the Christians and quelled by the manifest protection of God accorded
to them. This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens
out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages,
not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions
whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that,
however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly
peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities,
that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to
the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced. Even the
heavenly city, therefore, while in its state of pilgrimage, avails itself
of the peace of earth, and, so far as it can without injuring faith and
godliness, desires and maintains a common agreement among men regarding
the acquisition of the necessaries of life, and makes this earthly peace
bear upon the peace of heaven; for this alone can be truly called and esteemed
the peace of the reasonable creatures, consisting as it does in the perfectly
ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God and of one another in God. When
we shall have reached that peace, this mortal life shall give place to
one that is eternal, and our body shall be no more this animal body which
by its corruption weighs down the soul, but a spiritual body feeling no
want, and in all its members subjected to the will. In its pilgrim state
the heavenly city possesses this peace by faith; and by this faith it lives
righteously when it refers to the attainment of that peace every good action
towards God and man; for the life of the city is a social life.
Source: Taken from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, a collection of copy-permitted texts operated by Paul Halsall and located at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html.
4. St Vincent of Lerins Defines Orthodoxy, 434 CE [known as the "Vincentian Canon"]
Introduction: Lerins was one of the first monasteries founded in the Western half of the Roman Empire. It produced a series of fine scholars and theologians, of whom St Vincent is one. Part of the process of formalizing and organizing what it meant to be a Christian in the 4th and 5th centuries meant setting up definitions. Vincent's definition of what it meant to be ‘orthodox' or ‘catholic' is not the only example of its kind, merely one of the clearest and best known. It sets forth what would become the fundamental pillars of medieval Christianity (and, incidentally, of modern Catholicism). Look carefully at what Vincent sees as proper sources of Christian authority.
Vincent of Lerins, from the Commonitorium, Chapter 4 (434 CE):
(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.
(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
Source: Taken from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook, a collection of
copy-permitted texts operated by Paul Halsall and located at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html.